


The Very Picture Of Perversion

by CaptainCarlaCoulson



Category: Unspecified Fandom
Genre: Hogwarts, Living Portraits
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-12-19
Updated: 2020-12-19
Packaged: 2021-03-10 17:34:53
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,086
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/28171011
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/CaptainCarlaCoulson/pseuds/CaptainCarlaCoulson
Summary: How do living portraits work? And how can we use that? Specifically, can we make weird smutty fanfic about magic using adult making weird smutty fan art of their friends and having it come to life, sort of.





	The Very Picture Of Perversion

So, A Very Potter Musical/Sequel/Senior Year has magically animated, maybe even sapient, portraits. A poster of the Efron for example, which gets corrupted by being made a Horcrux for Voldemort. Which means that people in the wizarding world can create living (or at least, animated, sentient and at least partially sapient) pictures. 

Are these pictures:  
A) accurate to real life automatically. 

B) strictly a reflection of the artist's intent.

C) strictly a reflection if the viewer's intent.

D) sometimes one or the other, depending.

And, regardless, how static are these images?  
1) pretty much what you see is what you get. Portraits can visit other paintings, but that's all.

2) a little bit more mutable. Portraits can put on different clothes, furniture can be moved around, maybe even things can be broken "within" the painting and might need to be "fixed" by painting over them with new paint.

3) a lot more mutable for short term changes. Portraits can shave or get haircuts, and might be able to grow their hair (or they might need it painting back on) and they can eat the food in still-life paintings (which, again, might need painting back in).

4) extremely mutable, maybe even long-term changes are possible. Things that weren't originally painted in the painting still can exist in that "world" from just out of frame, especially if the painting implies their existence (a landscape painting of a mansion from the outside, letting your portraits enter it, hiding from view and simply *having* a mansion to live in). The people in the portraits can, while still immortal, change their own appearance in ways that a real world person could (find a painting that includes a tattoo parlour and get a tattoo, find a painting that includes a hair and nails salon and get their hair dyed and their nails painted, even find a painting of a gym and exercise till they look more buff than their real world self, or a painting of a foodcourt and gorge themselves regularly until they get more obese than their real world self. 

If A) is true, that suggests that you can obtain various information by painting whatever you want to know about. If you want to see a person naked, you could have a painting made of that person naked and it would definitely be accurate. If you wanted to know how they would react to you asking them out, you could paint a picture of you asking, in which their reaction is very visible, and that would be an accurate depiction of their reaction. 

If B) is true, then that is less possible. You just get whatever painting you wanted, instead of a true depiction. But that might be a better thing. Obviously not as much of a universally useful fact-checker with 100% accuracy. But, it does mean that you get a living picture of any image you want. Do you like furry porn but you think that [Celebrity crush] is super sexy? Well, draw them as a naked fox-person (or whatever) while you imagine that they are a very horny exhibitionist. There, now you have a living picture of a horny naked fox-person version of your crush.

If C) is true, then you don't even need to be an artist anymore. All you need to do is buy an existing portrait, or commission something, which *mostly* fits your requirements. If viewer intent trumps the artist's intent completely, then you could buy a portrait of a famous death-eater and simply *decide* that this portrait is of a version of them that is not only not a death-eater, but actually a very unintelligent muggle who is desperate to see if they can "deepthroat" their long, thin wooden dildo (which the artist clearly thought was a wand).

If D) is true then the rules change from one occasion to another and that is very true of the Harry Potter Universe in the books. Maybe less so of the Potter Musicals. But it does mean that all the above possibilities are open.

If 1) is true, then you typically get what you want from the start. You can't really change your mind later, but you will always have the thing you asked for. If portraits can't even change clothes, then you can have a portrait done of somebody's naked form and that naked person will be naked whenever you look at the picture. As long as they are in that picture, you get to see it. Any painting of an orgy will continue to be an orgy every time you look at it. They are always horny/climaxing/immediately ready to go again.

If 2) is true, then there can be more change. Which, while it means that you might not always get exactly what you expected from the painting, also means that you can potentially get more. If portraits can be at least a little but mutable, for instance, then you don't ever need to paint a nude portrait, which means that you can have your walls full of paintings of random, fully clothed people, completely innocent looking. Then, when nobody else is around, you simply have to "decide" that all the portraits that are not of people you want to see naked will want to leave paintings to go to paintings in a different room, while any paintings that a beautiful woman is in are now paintings of an exhibitionist who want to strip off and try to turn you on, like a pornstar.

If 3) is true you could even have portraits that change their look, or fulfill several types of fetishes, like a portrait of a beautiful naked woman sat next to a table filled with a huge decadent feast, who can simply sit and gorge and gorge and gorge, and end up with a stuffed, swollen stomach filled with a painfully large amount of food but actually looking turned on by her own gluttony.

If 4) is true, then you could get a portrait that has barely anything to do with the actual result you wanted and work towards it. A closet feeder could get a perfectly normal portrait of the celebrity they have a crush on and have that portrait of that person glut themselves on still-lifes of pasta, pizza, fries, hotdogs, cheeseburgers, chinese banquets, all you can eat buffets, and so on and so on, ending up with a portrait of that woman that is four or five times the size of the original woman.


End file.
